Low End Bee Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Just so it doesn't clog up other threads we can have our two bobs worth here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throwoff Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 inb4 jazz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discreet Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 (edited) [size=4]Er... coming in from the 'Who is Paul McCartney' thread...[/size] [size=4][quote] ...I'll just say that it was a sad day for music when punk happened, placing attitude above any real ability... [/quote] I'm not sure I would necessarily agree with that. Punk as of itself was not particularly interesting as far as I was concerned, but it was a catalyst that led to later bands and artists (who did have real ability) getting exposure where they may not have done previously.[/size] Edited February 14, 2012 by discreet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
risingson Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 It was just another chapter in British music. I think it had its place, and its a sound and attitude thats manifested in a few different bands of recent years. There were some pretty important bands to come out of the time, but I don't necessarily know if Punk is understated or overstated at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Low End Bee Posted February 14, 2012 Author Share Posted February 14, 2012 This ability thing worries me. I can enjoy a 2 minute Lurkers thrash equally as much as a 10 minute Gentle Giant track. Both songs will be played to suit their context. Maybe the Lurkers have more 'ability' as they can get the job done quicker? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigRedX Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Punk was good in that it made us rethink what was important about music. IMO attitude is just as important as ability. It saddens me to see "musicians" with incredible technique but obviously no imagination just as much as those with loads of ideas but lacking the ability to express them effectively. However the good ones with imagination generally also have the dedication to get the ability required the express themselves properly. Unfortunately those without imagination rarely manage to acquire it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Low End Bee Posted February 14, 2012 Author Share Posted February 14, 2012 There's a couple of punk bands who became a lot less interesting to me once they learnt how to play. As I said on the Macca thread though. The music industry are the ones who really did for a lot of the pre punk artists. A fickle bunch of pimps and thieves. You can't blame some spotty 15 year olds with Woolworths guitars for ruining the music you liked pre the glorious revolution. It was some bean counter in a flared 3 piece at CBS, Chrysalis, Virgin or wherever that did for 'em. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icastle Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 I wasn't a punk 'fan' at the time and I'm still not. For me, it was too noisy, too extreme and I felt it relied too heavily on shock tactics to distract from the lack of musical ability. [b]But[/b], it did seem to wake up a music scene that had perhaps become a little stale and complacent. After the initial thrashing about, screaming vocals and spitting at people died down it seemed almost as though there was a wholeraft of new sounds rushing in to fill that void, some of it from within the 'punk movement' and some of it from further afield. So, as a musical genre, it's not for me, but from a 'clearing the decks' perspective I wouldn't want to go back in time and change a thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janmaat Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 I always thought Punk being an artistic and social movement above all else. In terms of attitude, it's been a liberating experience to do whatever without any ability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spongebob Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 I think it's more of a symptom of music in the last (....) years that so many journalists still go on about it. I am too young to remember it at source (I'm of '74 vintage), but I feel I've lived through it 10.000 times over with the references, books, articles, etc, that flood everywhere year after year. I've got quite a few records of the era - loads of classics (Stranglers, Buzzcocks, etc.) but were they even punk bands in the first place? As for being a good thing, I'm 50/50 - I often think that maybe it sent music back to a state to where it has never recovered - a status of 'cool' over a certain style, and burying a lot of progression into the 'uncool' bin. Bands still trying to live off it 35 years later! I do love a lot of records of the era, but would have probably been lynched at the time for my fondness of the Mahavishnu Orchestra and some Yes records! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blademan_98 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Punk gave me hope that I could perform on stage It was a very good thing for me. I wanted to play the blues but lacked the ability so punk allowed me to play while learning Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul S Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 [quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1329237692' post='1539362'] Punk was good in that it made us rethink what was important about music. [/quote] [quote name='icastle' timestamp='1329238352' post='1539377'] [b]But[/b], it did seem to wake up a music scene that had perhaps become a little stale and complacent. [/quote] ^ This really^ Music seems to need a kick up the arse every now and then - Elvis, Jimi Hendrix, punk, grunge etc. I hated it at the time - I was actually at college in Kings Road Chelsea in the mid 70s when it all kicked off. Saw a few bands in their early stages and just thought they were a bunch of talentless attention seekers. But now, looking back, it was probably the best thing that could have happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacqueslemac Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 What's "Punk" in this context? As has been pointed out, it was more than just the music. It was the whole "do it with passion and do it for yourself" even if you didn't have the ability. It was about doing it without getting involved in the corporate music business scene. Even the music definition was blurred. At the time The Jam were lumped into the same bracket as the Undertones (who wore nice, knitted tank tops on Top of the Pops - very "punkl"!) and the Sex Pistols. I reckon Norman Watt-Roy knew how to play bass with Ian Drury (he was in the Blockheads then, wasn't he?). Anyway, I hated the safety-pin punk at the time. I was a Teddy Boy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle psychosis Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 A quick glance at the charts from the first half of the 1970s should be more than enough to convince all but the most cloth-eared that punk was completely and utterly [u][i][b]essential[/b][/i][/u]. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icastle Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 [quote name='Blademan_98' timestamp='1329239377' post='1539410'] I wanted to play the blues but lacked the ability so punk allowed me to play while learning [/quote] Yeah, but despite that, some good has to have come out of it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blademan_98 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 [quote name='icastle' timestamp='1329241057' post='1539454'] Yeah, but despite that, some good has to have come out of it... [/quote] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prunesquallor Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 It was absolutely necessary! And a lot of people forget how diverse the scene was. The Buzzcocks, the Undertones, the Clash, the Damned, the Stranglers, and Siouxie and the Banshees were all considered first-generation punk bands - along with the Sex Pistols - before the genre police got involved. I too thought it was weird how the Undertones dressed on TOTP, but Feargal Sharkey has since said that that was streetwear where they were living at the time. It was all street music for kids fed up with stadium prog-rock. And let's not forget that Nirvana would've been nothing without punk... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Apple Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Very good thing. Blew away a lot of cob-webs. Anyway, I've always thought the argument that punk bands couldnt play was a bit redundant. I think most of them could play pretty well, and had been around in other incarnations before '76. It's more that they stripped it all down to basics, and had more in common with '50's rock n' roll. Decent stuff always stands the test of time and the good punk stuff is still around, as is the good stuff pre '76. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
essexbasscat Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 [quote name='icastle' timestamp='1329238352' post='1539377'] I wasn't a punk 'fan' at the time and I'm still not. For me, it was too noisy, too extreme and I felt it relied too heavily on shock tactics to distract from the lack of musical ability. [b]But[/b], it did seem to wake up a music scene that had perhaps become a little stale and complacent. After the initial thrashing about, screaming vocals and spitting at people died down it seemed almost as though there was a wholeraft of new sounds rushing in to fill that void, some of it from within the 'punk movement' and some of it from further afield. So, as a musical genre, it's not for me, but from a 'clearing the decks' perspective I wouldn't want to go back in time and change a thing. [/quote] I'd agree with a substantial amount of the above. The most appealing contribution of the era for me was the social trend towards individualism. It led to the only time in modern history where psychological tests of conformity demonstrated a generalised trend away from conformity. Artists of the time were not afraid to explore new ideas in dress, music, comedy, art etc. Today, society as a whole seems more conformist than ever. Artists of all forms seem to operate inside accepted 'norms' these days. There doesn't appear to be much bravado towards self expression these days. Rather boring really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BILL POSTERS Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 [quote name='uncle psychosis' timestamp='1329240994' post='1539452'] A quick glance at the charts from the first half of the 1970s should be more than enough to convince all but the most cloth-eared that punk was completely and utterly [u][i][b]essential[/b][/i][/u]. [/quote] Speaking as somebody who was there at the time - This post says it all. Absolutely on the money. Rock and Roll had lost its way, not just the singles charts, but programs like the ogwt, John Peel and such were playing, and talking utter drivel,...man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skankdelvar Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 (edited) Whether ultimately innovative or not, punk was an important moment in the development of pop music. If nothing else, it was tremendous fun. For all that some might exaggerate 'the end of musicianship', it is quite obvious that the pre-punk behemoths of bombast managed to soldier on for a good long while. Many are still with us, for good or evil. Rather than a ground-zero of destruction, it was more an injection of new-ish blood and new-ish attitudes to songwriting and performance. With the benefit of hindsight, many of the punk bands I loved were simply derivations of 60's garage or second-generation copies of the Ramones (to whom all praise). But the best ones transcended their limitations to produce some very interesting music. If punk's sole contribution was to enlarge the pop 'songbook', then it was a job well done. But the collateral benefits of "Let's give it a go", self-production and cottage-industry record labels have greatly benefitted the diversity of our musical community. God knows, Marillion wouldn't still be going were it not for the DIY punk ethos. The desirability of said outcome will depend upon one's tastes. [color=#ffffff].[/color] Edited February 14, 2012 by skankdelvar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTUK Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Only had time to skim this.. but Punk passed me by. I can relate to the aggresiveness but not the inability to play..and the fact it didn't supposedly matter to some. The class acts lasted and the dross/bandwagon didn't. A useful period, overall, but better viewed in retrospect, IMO. It did take the mic out a few things and that was a good thing but then it also disappeared up its own ar$e doing so, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosebass Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 (edited) Punk in essence was an enabling movement for the youth of the time that felt sidelined or excluded from 'mainstream' society. It was also very encompassing and covered a wide genre of music that seemed to gel under the punk banner, Ramones , Jam, Stranglers, Pistols, Elvis Costello, Ed Banger and the Nosebleeds, to name just a few diverse acts. Was it a good thing ? well ask anyone who was a true follower and you will generally find they still consider themselves a punk now. It would be wrong though to think that followers of punk (music , fashion, ethics) were punk exclusively. I watched the Ramones at the Free Trade Hall one week and returned a few weeks later to watch Weather Report.... Diversity is always the key. Edited February 14, 2012 by Prosebass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mykesbass Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 [quote name='Prunesquallor' timestamp='1329241736' post='1539471'] The Buzzcocks, the Undertones, the Clash, and Siouxie and the Banshees were all considered first-generation punk bands - along with the Sex Pistols - [/quote] [quote name='Prosebass' timestamp='1329244434' post='1539544'] Elvis Costello, [/quote] See, again, it all comes down to opinion - I really wouldn't include any of the above in the Punk category - I remember reading a review of an Elvis Costello gig at the time when the audience apparently all left the venue chanting "kill the punks" (sorry, paraphrasing, it was a long time ago, but the gist of the review was that, in no way was the Costello fanbase Punks. Punk was a very important attitude changer and was needed at the time, but in retrospect, the music was all prettyy tame and IMO only two or three acts really worked their way into the public's conciousness and most of them were better musically than they would like to have admitted! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 [quote name='icastle' timestamp='1329238352' post='1539377'] I wasn't a punk 'fan' at the time and I'm still not. For me, it was too noisy, too extreme and I felt it relied too heavily on shock tactics to distract from the lack of musical ability. [/quote] That's my view as well. It was just a flash in the pan - a bit of shocking fun at the time but it had no any lasting legacy that I can see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.